Jno. Dunlop's Sons, Inc. v. Spurr
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Equity Corp. v. Groves (N.Y. 1945)
- Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. (District Court, W.D. New York 1941)
- Rieser v. Baltimore & OR Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1954)
- Truncale v. Universal Pictures Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1948)
- Sialkot Importing Corp. v. Berlin (N.Y. 1946)
- Goldboss v. Reimann (District Court, S.D. New York 1943)
- Corash v. Texas Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1942)
- Eastman v. Morgan (District Court, S.D. New York 1942)
- Roslyn Union Free School District v. Barkan (N.Y. 2011)
- Trinity Cooperative Apts., Inc. v. J. S. Building Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1966)
- Kerekes v. Greenwood Properties, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- McCarthy Co., Inc. v. Hill (N.Y. 1946)
- Gottfried v. Gottfried (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1945)
- Hastings v. Byllesby Co. (Haystone) (N.Y. 1944)
- McLear v. McLear (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1943)
- Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1943)
- Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1943)
- Bank of United States v. Norman (New York Supreme Court 1943)
- Lamb v. Du Pont (New York Supreme Court 1943)
- Mannheimer v. Keehn (New York Supreme Court 1943)
- Wagner v. Armsby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1942)
- Scott v. Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1942)
- Frank v. Carlisle (N.Y. 1941)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Potter v. Walker (276 N. Y. 15) did not decide that the ten-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prac. Act, § 53) is necessarily applicable to all cases in which corporate directors have profited in any degree through a breach of their fiduciary duties. In such a case an action for an accounting may be brought only for the recovery of gains received by the directors beyond the amount of losses caused to the corporation by their wrong. Where, as in the present case, the gains received by the directors do not exceed the correlated losses suffered by the corporation, no accounting is necessary and the Statute of Limitations which controls the remedy at law is to be applied. (See Goldstein v. Tri-Continental Corp., 282 N. Y. 21.)
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Pinch, Lewis and Desmond, JJ.; concur; Rippey and Conway, JJ., concur in result.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.